Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29496892›Full record

Observational studyThe Journal of rheumatology2018

Renal Remission Status and Longterm Renal Survival in Patients with Lupus Nephritis: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Julie E Davidson, Qinggong Fu, Beulah Ji, Sapna Rao, David Roth, Laurence S Magder, Michelle Petri

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The Journal of rheumatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Julie E DavidsonFrom the Real World Evidence and Clinical Development, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK; GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Upper Providence, Pennsylvania, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Qinggong FuFrom the Real World Evidence and Clinical Development, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK; GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Upper Providence, Pennsylvania, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Beulah JiFrom the Real World Evidence and Clinical Development, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK; GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Upper Providence, Pennsylvania, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Beulah.N.Ji@gsk.com.
Sapna RaoFrom the Real World Evidence and Clinical Development, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK; GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Upper Providence, Pennsylvania, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
David RothFrom the Real World Evidence and Clinical Development, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK; GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Upper Providence, Pennsylvania, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Laurence S MagderFrom the Real World Evidence and Clinical Development, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK; GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Upper Providence, Pennsylvania, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Michelle PetriFrom the Real World Evidence and Clinical Development, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK; GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Upper Providence, Pennsylvania, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland; Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Lupus CohortR01AR043727 · NIAMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI PETRI, MICHELLE A · 1997 to 2015
$8.2M
Hopkins Lupus CohortR01AR069572 · NIAMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI PETRI, MICHELLE A · 2016 to 2020
$3.4M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR043727NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR069572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis observational study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected Hopkins Lupus Cohort data to compare longterm renal survival in patients with lupus nephritis (LN) who achieved complete (CR), partial (PR), or no remission following standard-of-care LN induction therapy.

methodsEligible patients with biopsy-proven LN (revised American College of Rheumatology or Systemic Lupus Collaborating Clinics criteria) were identified and categorized into ordinal (CR, PR, or no remission) or binary (response or no response) renal remission categories at 24 months post-diagnosis [modified Aspreva Lupus Management Study (mALMS) and modified Belimumab International Lupus Nephritis Study (mBLISS-LN) criteria]. The primary endpoint was longterm renal survival [without endstage renal disease (ESRD) or death].

resultsIn total, 176 patients met the inclusion criteria. At Month 24 postbiopsy, more patients met mALMS remission criteria (CR = 59.1%, PR = 30.1%) than mBLISS-LN criteria (CR = 40.9%, PR = 16.5%). During subsequent followup, 18 patients developed ESRD or died. Kaplan-Meier plots suggested patients with no remission at Month 24 were more likely than those with PR or CR to develop the outcome using either mALMS (p = 0.0038) and mBLISS-LN (p = 0.0097) criteria for remission. Based on Cox regression models adjusted for key confounders, those in CR according to the mBLISS-LN (HR 0.254, 95% CI 0.082-0.787; p = 0.0176) and mALMS criteria (HR 0.228, 95% CI 0.063-0.828; p = 0.0246) were significantly less likely to experience ESRD/mortality than those not in remission.

conclusionRenal remission status at 24 months following LN diagnosis is a significant predictor of longterm renal survival, and a clinically relevant endpoint.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBiopsyCreatinineDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateKidneyKidney Failure, ChronicLupus NephritisMaleMiddle AgedCreatinineCOHORT STUDIESENDSTAGE RENAL DISEASELUPUS NEPHRITISMORTALITYREMISSION INDUCTIONSURVIVAL

Identifiers

PMID29496892
PMCPMC5932209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.